I've been slacking, friends. Or maybe distracted. Perhaps both. I've been so focused on what's going on in the multitude of cases seeking injunctive relief against the Trump administration that I neglected to get the old "Skinny on SCOTUS" series fired up again, and now we're 19 decisions into the 2024 term for the Supreme Court, so we've (I've) some catching up to do. But catch up, I will.
We'll start, of course, with those issued in the Before Times as 2024 (and the Biden presidency) dwindled down. This set involves three "per curiam" decisions — i.e., "by the court as a whole" — including two where certiorari (the court's agreement to review the matter) was dismissed "as improvidently granted." (In other words: We thought we wanted to review and rule on this one, but after further consideration, we do not.) The other decision was unanimous and, of some note, given current events, found that the courts lacked jurisdiction to review an agency's determination on the denial of an immigration visa involving a sham marriage situation.
As always, this is by no means intended as a thorough analysis — just a quick overview for the non-law-geek sorts:
November 2024 Decisions
Date: November 4, 2024
Author: Per Curiam
Split: 7-2
Dissent: Thomas, Gorsuch
Appeal From: Eleventh Circuit
Joseph Clifton Smith was sentenced to death for the murder of Durk Van Dam. The U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after concluding that he is intellectually disabled. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002). Smith has obtained five full-scale IQ scores, ranging from 72 to 78. Smith's claim of intellectual disability depended in part on whether his IQ is 70 or below. The District Court found that Smith's IQ could be as low as 69 given the standard error of measurement for his lowest score of 72. The District Court then vacated the death sentence, and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affrmed.
Issue: Whether the lower courts properly assessed the defendant's intellectual disability in determining his eligibility for the death sentence.
Holding: Vacated and remanded.
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion might be read to suggest a per se rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender's lowest score is dispositive. Alternatively, the Eleventh Circuit's opinion might be read to suggest a more holistic approach that considers the relevant evidence, including as appropriate any relevant expert testimony. The case is remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to clarify the basis for its decision.
Skinny: This one is more about process than substance. Because the Eleventh Circuit's basis for its decision isn't fully clear, SCOTUS is directing the appellate court to clarify it, as that may ultimately affect whether SCOTUS will take the case up when/if further review is sought. As to the substance, this is the odd situation where it may work to a person's (Smith's) advantage to have an even lower IQ, as that may ultimately spare him a death sentence.
Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank
Date: November 22, 2024
Author: Per Curiam
Split: N/A
Dissent: N/A
Appeal From: Ninth Circuit
This is a securities fraud class action against Meta based "on the theory that Facebook’s disclosures improperly downplayed the risks of a data breach to shareholders. The company had disclosed the risk of hypothetical future data breaches, which shareholders argue violated securities law because Cambridge Analytica had already exploited the data of millions of users. When Cambridge’s misuse of user data later became widely known, Facebook’s stock price fell dramatically."
- Are risk disclosures false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm?
- Does Federal Rule 8 or Rule 9(b) supply the proper pleading standard for loss causation in a private securities-fraud action?
Holding: Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.
Skinny: A bit anti-climactic — this one's headed back to the lower courts to proceed against Facebook/Meta.
December 2024 Decisions
Date: December 10, 2024
Author: Jackson
Split: 9-0
Dissent: N/A
Appeal From: Eleventh Circuit
Amina Bouarfa, a U. S. citizen, began the process of obtaining permanent legal residence for Ala'a Hamayel, her noncitizen spouse, by filing a visa petition with the U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Relevant here, USCIS “shall . . . approve” a visa petition if it “determines that the facts stated in the petition are true” and that the noncitizen is the petitioner's spouse. 8 U. S. C. § 1154(b) (emphasis added). But if the noncitizen has previously sought or received an immigration benefit “by reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws”—known as the sham-marriage bar—the agency must deny the petition. § 1154(c). USCIS initially approved Bouarfa's visa petition. Two years later, the agency sent Bouarfa a Notice of Intent to Revoke its approval based on evidence suggesting that her husband had previously entered into a marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws. Although Bouarfa vigorously denied the evidence, the agency revoked its prior approval based on the Secretary of Homeland Security's statutory authority under § 1155 to “revoke the approval of any petition” “for good and sufficient cause.” The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the revocation, finding that USCIS's determination that Hamayel had entered into a prior sham marriage that would have prevented initial approval of the petition under § 1154(c) constituted “good and sufficient cause” for revocation under § 1155.
Bouarfa challenged the agency's revocation in federal court. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)—a provision that strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain discretionary agency decisions—barred judicial review of the agency's revocation. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.
Holding: Affirmed.
Revocation of an approved visa petition under § 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the purview of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions “in the discretion of” the agency.
Skinny: Courts don't get a say in discretionary determinations made by agencies (here, the USCIS) when the statute specifically notes that such determinations are not subject to judicial review. This one's interesting in light of the ongoing battle in the courts over the Trump administration's efforts to remove illegal aliens from the country. It's not the exact same situation as the current uproar over the removal of TdA members pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, but it's instructive.
NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB
Date: December 11, 2024
Author: Per Curiam
Split: N/A
Dissent: N/A
Appeal From: Ninth Circuit
NVIDIA, the world’s most valuable company, sells computer graphics processing chips designed primarily for use in video games, which it sells to manufacturers of game devices. As it happens, NVIDIA’s chips also are useful for mining cryptocurrency, and in 2017 many crypto miners started to buy NVIDIA chips for that purpose. As that use increased, NVIDIA’s chip sales increased. But in 2018, when the price of bitcoin went through a period of sharp decline, reducing the incentive for crypto mining, NVIDIA’s sales declined.
Shareholders responded by filing the proposed class action here, alleging that NVIDIA executives (including CEO Jensen Huang) made false and misleading statements about the extent to which use in crypto mining was propping up NVIDIA’s chip sales. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit allowed the action to proceed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.
At issue in the case is the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, a statute adopted in 1995 to stem securities class actions. Among other things, it establishes a high bar for crafting a successful complaint in such a case. If the case alleges a false or misleading statement, it must not only specify the reasons why each statement is believed to be misleading but also “state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed.” Moreover, the complaint also must “state with particularity facts” that “giv[e] rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” That “strong inference” standard is notably higher than the normal standard for a complaint.
- Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the PSLRA based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents.
- Whether plaintiffs can satisfy the PSLRA's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.
Holding: Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.
Skinny: Another one headed back to the lower courts for further litigation. This one's back before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it's currently set for a Case Management Conference on Tuesday.
You can check out prior installments of The Skinny on SCOTUS series here
